Nole at number 1

[Poisoned Slice]

Drawn to 60 for some reason. I'll go for that.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

It's never too dry

I was looking for the "I am miserable and boring" quote from Andy, after 5 seconds gave up w that. Found this instead:

Being boring on purpose is the way to go. Dry too.

 

[Red Rick]

I was looking for the "I am miserable and boring" quote from Andy, after 5 seconds gave up w that. Found this instead:

Being boring on purpose is the way to go. Dry too.

I'm pretty sure that picture was taken after he had won a big match

 

[Ann]

Quite the opposite.

Fed fans have pointed out a million times that Nadal and Djokovic are 5 and 6 years younger respectively.

Now I'd have to look up who's 5 and 6 years younger than those 2, but really, Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov and Goffin have long proven to never get near the #1 spot and will likely be out the door before Djokovic and Nadal.

Only Murray and Nadal have been ranked above Federer at 36+

Who the hell is gonna stop Djokovic at 34?

That's assuming that Djokovic's skills don't ebb quickly with age. Federer isn't typical playing at 37 or winning slams after 35. Both Nadal and Djokovic could start declining drastically in the next couple of years.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Quite the opposite.

Fed fans have pointed out a million times that Nadal and Djokovic are 5 and 6 years younger respectively.

Now I'd have to look up who's 5 and 6 years younger than those 2, but really, Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov and Goffin have long proven to never get near the #1 spot and will likely be out the door before Djokovic and Nadal.

Only Murray and Nadal have been ranked above Federer at 36+

Who the hell is gonna stop Djokovic at 34?

Yeah, the 5 years younger argument isnt reliable anymore.
Novak will probably be ranked over Federer soon as well like Rafa and Andy did.

There is no reason what so ever seeing Djokodal and even Andy to stop here. Its no signs for that.
Rafa just played his best Wimbledon in many years. Been in latter stages of every slam. While Novak is winning again like he did.

Who can stop them? Cilic? Federer? Anderson? Andy, Rafa and Novak himself can pretty much clean the slams for years to come.
Maybe Thiem on clay, but just maybe. Thiem had lots of chances and he hasnt taken them.

 

[NoleFam]

The odds are higher hell get most weeks at 1 than slam record tbh.

Apparently since Novak fans were too bullish in 2016, were not allowed to say it looks distinctly possible? Lol

I mean it does look like he has a good chance.

BTW my particular prediction which has been thrown in my face for years is that hell win 18 slams. Does that seem so unlikely now? Will there be an apology if he does?

Or will the people just slither away.

I'm talking about a very select group of people not most good fans including Fedeer fans.

I predicted he will 17 before the end of his career after Wimbledon and I think he will definitely reach that. 18 is actually not that far fetched right now. I think he is in the beginning of a late career Renaissance and I don't think he has peaked in this part of his career yet. I think he will reach a higher level than he showed so far this year and this could be enough to push him to 3 or 4 more Slams.

I think he reaches 70 more weeks no question. One thing he loves just as much as Slams is being #1. I actually think he is more obsessed with that ranking than Rafa and Roger are. I agree he has a better chance of breaking the weeks at #1 record than the Slam record.

 

[Red Rick]

That's assuming that Djokovic's skills don't ebb quickly with age. Federer isn't typical playing at 37 or winning slams after 35. Both Nadal and Djokovic could start declining drastically in the next couple of years.

They could. Neither of them are at their physical peak anymore. But both have such a gap in shotmaking skills over all the others that they have plenty of room to manoeuvre as of yet.

I think Nadal should change his schedule to like 5HC tournaments including the Slams, Wimbledon, and then like 7 clay tournaments.

I expect Djokovic to slowly phase out the smaller tournaments in his schedule. He's dialed in for the 1000s now cause of the YE#1 chase, but I expect he'll start skipping them more or to play them solely for rhythm a bit more too.

 

[The Fedfather]

His consistency towards his two main rivals in his career proves something else.

Slams matters, not how many qf reached in a row or whatever.

Time will show what will happen

I said it once and I'll say it again, Nadal was Federer's achilles heel and he struggled against him during his best years, for a couple of reasons. Djokovic is not in the same conversation. The age gap has played a significant part in how their rivalry unfolded but overall it is a very balanced one and I'd argue if Federer's and Djokovic's primes coincided, Roger would have the upper hand. However, as you rightfully said, Slams are what truly matters and Federer is second to none there as well.

Obviously time will tell. I just explained why you are wrong to claim that "no other player that can win slams on all surfaces like Novak can do" and that Federer isn't as consistent as him.

 

[Red Rick]

Yeah, the 5 years younger argument isnt reliable anymore.
Novak will probably be ranked over Federer soon as well like Rafa and Andy did.

There is no reason what so ever seeing Djokodal and even Andy to stop here. Its no signs for that.
Rafa just played his best Wimbledon in many years. Been in latter stages of every slam. While Novak is winning again like he did.

Who can stop them? Cilic? Federer? Anderson? Andy, Rafa and Novak himself can pretty much clean the slams for years to come.
Maybe Thiem on clay, but just maybe. Thiem had lots of chances and he hasnt taken them.

The Cilic/Delpo crowd is also over their physical peak, and I don't see any intersection where they will decline sufficiently less than Djokodal for them to take over.

Honestly, I think there's a possibility Murray finishes top 5 next year.

 

[tennisaddict]

He will likely get this record but all that matters is 21 majors and he would fall short by a good number there. RAfa is likely to end up second as I don’t see Djoker adding 4 more at this point

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I said it once and I'll say it again, Nadal was Federer's achilles heel and he struggled against him during his best years, for a couple of reasons. Djokovic is not in the same conversation. The age gap has played a significant part in how their rivalry unfolded but overall it is a very balanced one and I'd argue if Federer's and Djokovic's primes coincided, Roger would have the upper hand. However, as you rightfully said, Slams are what truly matters and Federer is second to none there as well.

Obviously time will tell. I just explained why you are wrong to claim that "no other player that can win slams on all surfaces like Novak can do" and that Federer isn't as consistent as him.

Problem is how good you are against Nadal matters. Nadal is an all time great and one of the few best players ever. You cant just say "matchup" that might be true but it's part of the equation if you had a matchup issue with another all time great and someone else didnt. Its definitely in Djokos favor that he was more even with Rafa than Federer and better against him on clay.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

He will likely get this record but all that matters is 21 majors and he would fall short by a good number there. RAfa is likely to end up second as I don’t see Djoker adding 4 more at this point

I actually kind of agree with you. But will you still think that "all that matter is 21 majors" if either Novak or Rafa gets there? Will you credit them as GOAT in that case? Be honest.

 

[CYGS]

I actually kind of agree with you. But will you still think that "all that matter is 21 majors" if either Novak or Rafa gets there? Will you credit them as GOAT in that case? Be honest.

Of course not. Fed has unbeatable grace and elegance in his play style.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

The Cilic/Delpo crowd is also over their physical peak, and I don't see any intersection where they will decline sufficiently less than Djokodal for them to take over.

Honestly, I think there's a possibility Murray finishes top 5 next year.

If he gets back to even a decent level there is no reason he can't finish 3rd or 4th.

 

[Red Rick]

Of course not. Fed has unbeatable grace and elegance in his play style.

Fog Goat

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I'm pretty sure that picture was taken after he had won a big match

Yes, he looks overly positive there to be him.

 

[Red Rick]

Yes, he looks overly positive there to be him.

When you win the World Tour Finals, seasl YE#1 but suddently realise that every breath brings you closer to your death and there's nothing you can do about it

 

[RaulRamirez]

He is playing great again with not many points to defend from AO-RG which means if he continues to play well through early next year, he can extend his lead in the rankings.

I get that, but my reply was more due to a. the constant punditry about defending points. Yes, that matters week to week, but it's all about earning points; and b. the comment that his poor start to 2018 helped/helps him. If that were the case, does being the 2,000th-ranked player in 2018 help that player in 2019? Well, no...but it only appears to help through the narow prism of "defending points."

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I get that, but my reply was more due to a. the constant punditry about defending points. Yes, that matters week to week, but it's all about earning points; and b. the comment that his poor start to 2018 helped/helps him. If that were the case, does being the 2,000th-ranked player in 2018 help that player in 2019? Well, no...but it only appears to help through the narow prism of "defending points."

What you're saying is often true but in this case it really does help him, it's very rare his ascension and hes going to benefit from it in terms if weeks at 1. If he was good enough to be like 2nd or 3rd ranked in the early part of 2018 it wouldnt help him as much.

 

[tennisaddict]

I actually kind of agree with you. But will you still think that "all that matter is 21 majors" if either Novak or Rafa gets there? Will you credit them as GOAT in that case? Be honest.

I think for the general public Novak or RAfa would be GOAT if they get 21.

But Fed and Rafa have so much flair in their game that it is pure art . Djoker is machine like and more science . Personally I would never consider Novak the GOAT but he is probably the most technically complete player . Fed’s Uber offense is not a right fit for that slot

 

[CYGS]

I think for the general public Novak or RAfa would be GOAT if they get 21.

But Fed and Rafa have so much flair in their game that it is pure art . Djoker is machine like and more science . Personally I would never consider Novak the GOAT but he is probably the most technically complete player . Fed’s Uber offense is not a right fit for that slot

So predictable.

 

[guitarra]

Anything is possible with Novak. If he keeps his level and no-one steps up then he could break the all time record. But on the other hand nothing is a given - many things could happen that would knock him off the top.

 

[NoleFam]

I get that, but my reply was more due to a. the constant punditry about defending points. Yes, that matters week to week, but it's all about earning points; and b. the comment that his poor start to 2018 helped/helps him. If that were the case, does being the 2,000th-ranked player in 2018 help that player in 2019? Well, no...but it only appears to help through the narow prism of "defending points."

His poor start helps him going into 2019 because he has little points to defend. It is definitely about earning points as you said but it's also about defending points. You cannot earn when you are always defending which is what he had to worry about at his peak from 2015-2016, but doesn't have to worry about the 1st half of next year.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think for the general public Novak or RAfa would be GOAT if they get 21.

But Fed and Rafa have so much flair in their game that it is pure art . Djoker is machine like and more science . Personally I would never consider Novak the GOAT but he is probably the most technically complete player . Fed’s Uber offense is not a right fit for that slot

Shouldn't the GOAT be who has the best achievements regardless of style? After all, the ultimate goal is to win is it not?

 

[RaulRamirez]

What you're saying is often true but in this case it really does help him, it's very rare his ascension and hes going to benefit from it in terms if weeks at 1. If he was good enough to be like 2nd or 3rd ranked in the early part of 2018 it wouldnt help him as much.

It could help him hold onto #1 through the first 6 months of 2019, assuming he gets there - or "help" hm get there in early 2019. But by that analysis, his two majors-plus a 1000 and maybe more in the second half of 2019 will hurt him. To me, losing never helps (even in the prior years) and winning never hurts. The whole "defending points" approach is just parroted to death, both here and elsewhere. It's to the point where everyone is making all these calculations for YE#1 based on this, when it's much easier to just watch the Race to London.

Drives me crazy, as I search for intelligent discussion sites on all the stuff that matters to me - tennis, all the major American sports, politics, music, etc. (That said, I think we mostly agree, and that you, essentially, see my points here.)

 

[Red Rick]

His poor start helps him going into 2019 because he has little points to defend. It is definitely about earning points as you said but it's also abut defending points. You cannot earn when you are always defending which is what he had to worry about at his peak from 2015-2016, but doesn't have to worry about the 1st half of next year.

Exactly.

Djokovic is in a position where it's very likely he'll get #1 for months in 2019. If he wants to break Fed's record, he needs to be #1 until mid 2020 if it's consecutively from WTF onwards.

Every win right now will help him for 52 weeks.

 

[Steve0904]

Hard to say right now. Best guess is somewhere between 50-70 IMO. 50 is basically a year and 70 is probably the max extending from that. As we've seen recently with Murray and now Djokovic, the extremely unexpected can happen when talking about the #1 ranking.

 

[RaulRamirez]

His poor start helps him going into 2019 because he has little points to defend. It is definitely about earning points as you said but it's also about defending points. You cannot earn when you are always defending which is what he had to worry about at his peak from 2015-2016, but doesn't have to worry about the 1st half of next year.

Believe me, I understand the week-to-week fluctuations, and I just replied to someone else at more length. I just think you and others are twisting it way out of proportion. By earning points, I mean doing well to "score" points in a given tournament, regardless of how you did in that tournament the previous year! For week-to-week fluctuations, defending points can be watched - and have some merit - but nobody becomes a better player (statistically) because of being worse the year before, or a worse player because of doing better the year before.

 

[NoleFam]

Exactly.

Djokovic is in a position where it's very likely he'll get #1 for months in 2019. If he wants to break Fed's record, he needs to be #1 until mid 2020 if it's consecutively from WTF onwards.

Every win right now will help him for 52 weeks.

Yes. And he can use the 1st half of 2019 to just pad his points and separate himself from the field so he has a nice cushion going into the 2nd half of 2019 where his chance of adding more points is slim. I remember at his peak he had double the amount of points than #2 and even when he sucked in the 2nd half of 2016, he still stayed #1 for 5 more months after that.

 

[Red Rick]

Yes. And he can use the 1st half of 2019 to just pad his points and separate himself from the field so he has a nice cushion going into the 2nd half of 2019 where his chance of adding more points is slim. I remember at his peak he had double the amount of points than #2 and even when he sucked in the 2nd half of 2016, he still stayed #1 for 5 more months after that.

It can even be better

Murray was #1 for the majority of 2017.

 

[The Fedfather]

Problem is how good you are against Nadal matters. Nadal is an all time great and one of the few best players ever. You cant just say "matchup" that might be true but it's part of the equation if you had a matchup issue with another all time great and someone else didnt. Its definitely in Djokos favor that he was more even with Rafa than Federer and better against him on clay.

Comparing how good players are against Nadal matters only if those players are equal or extremely close in the overall records. Remember, both Fedal and Djokodal's H2Hs are already accounted for in their achievements. So far Federer has exceeded Djokovic in almost every aspect, except for CYGS and Masters titles. And the top 10 wins at GS of course.

 

[NoleFam]

Believe me, I understand the week-to-week fluctuations, and I just replied to someone else at more length. I just think you and others are twisting it way out of proportion. By earning points, I mean doing well to "score" points in a given tournament, regardless of how you did in that tournament the previous year! For week-to-week fluctuations, defending points can be watched - and have some merit - but nobody becomes a better player (statistically) because of being worse the year before, or a worse player because of doing better the year before.

It always matters how you did in the tournament the previous year and your ability to score points is dependent upon how many points you earned the previous year. Always. ATP points are on a rolling 52 week scale so this is always important. I'm not following where you are going with this. No one is talking about being a better player. We are talking about being the #1 tennis player in the world and how he can stay there. Being worse the first half of this year works in his favor because he is (1) now a much better player than then and (2) has a good chance to have a good run at #1 because he has little points to defend the 1st half of the year. Little points to defend -> more tournaments to use to add points.

 

[NoleFam]

It can even be better

Murray was #1 for the majority of 2017.

Yep. I think he lost the ranking in August that year after having a rather forgettable first half of the year.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It could help him hold onto #1 through the first 6 months of 2019, assuming he gets there - or "help" hm get there in early 2019. But by that analysis, his two majors-plus a 1000 and maybe more in the second half of 2019 will hurt him. To me, losing never helps (even in the prior years) and winning never hurts. The whole "defending points" approach is just parroted to death, both here and elsewhere. It's to the point where everyone is making all these calculations for YE#1 based on this, when it's much easier to just watch the Race to London.

Drives me crazy, as I search for intelligent discussion sites on all the stuff that matters to me - tennis, all the major American sports, politics, music, etc. (That said, I think we mostly agree, and that you, essentially, see my points here.)

Hmmmm this is a bit of an interesting conundrum here. I do of course see what you are saying and in general I find the defending thing an error most of the time because of the factors you point out. It all evens out and it is essentially a year long race each year.

However, in this case, I still think the oddity of the timing in the season helps him. I might be wrong, but let's talk it out logically. Your bold is a good point in a general sense. But, because of the timing of Novak's rise, he will have several months before he will have points start coming off next year if he doesn't match the lofty results this year from Wimbledon on. By that point, it really is "more about the race" anyway in most years as the year goes on, obviously that years results become more and more important in your ranking until the end of the year where the ranking is exactly the same as the race.

I think because he did so poorly in 2018 first half and rose so quickly in the 2nd half of the year, that gives him extra time at number 1 in 2019 first half than other combinations. Only if he would have been 1 in early 2018 and wasn't, does it balance out. If he would have done better in 2018 1st half but not been 1, say if he was 2nd or 3rd, then I do really think in terms of his chances for time at 1 in the futuer (early 2019) doing so poorly in early 2018 oddly helped.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Comparing how good players are against Nadal matters only if those players are equal or extremely close in the overall records. Remember, both Fedal and Djokodal's H2Hs are already accounted for in their achievements. So far Federer has exceeded Djokovic in almost every aspect, except for CYGS and Masters titles. And the top 10 wins at GS of course.

Well I agree I certianly wouldnt say Novak has exceeded Federer yet. But if we were talking about on clay for example, I think results against Nadal would matter.

 

[The Fedfather]

Well I agree I certianly wouldnt say Novak has exceeded Federer yet. But if we were talking about on clay for example, I think results against Nadal would matter.

Sure they would. That's just not what our argument with GhostOfAgassi was about.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Sure they would. That's just not what our argument with GhostOfAgassi was about.

Well I do think Novak is a bigger threat on clay and RG although both only have 1 RG. I would give Djokovic a chance of beating Nadal at RG next year for example. He does seem like more of an all surface player, although Fed's obviously better on grass and fast hc by a significant margin.

 

[tennisaddict]

Shouldn't the GOAT be who has the best achievements regardless of style? After all, the ultimate goal is to win is it not?

I think GOAT should be a mixture of Achievements + Talent + Style.

Personally I am biased towards players with attacking styles.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

You all know what I will say as soon as Djokovic takes the number one ranking....

 

[Pheasant]

If Djoker fans are correct, then age doesn't matter much up until age 35-40 or so. And if that's correct, then Fed's record number of weeks at #1 will be in serious jeopardy, as will his career # of slam titles. I.e,Djokovic will surpass Fed's records at #1 and his slam title count.

If Fed fans are right, then Djokodal will fall off of a cliff shortly and Fed's records will be safe.

Fed stopped being able to take down Djokovic at slams during his age-32 season. As another poster said, 2019 will tell a massive story for Djokovic. Because 2019 is Djoker's age-32 season. If Djokovic gets stonewalled at slams by younger players in 2019, then Fed's old-age excuses will be confirmed. Also, that means Djoker will likely fall way short of Fed's records. However, if Djokovic mops up in 2019, then watch out.

I really think that 2019 will tell us a ton. We shall see how much Djoker slows down. If Djoker has another epic season(3 slam titles, 70+ wins, .900 winning pct), then we'll likely see the writing on the wall that Djoker will become the king. But if Djoker gets knocked out by next-gen guys at slams, then Federer will rightfully remain the king.

Djoker's been mopping up 2018. Let's see what 2019 brings. Djokovic is looking up to the task of breaking Fed's records. And if he does it, I'll be the first to congratulate him for being the new GOAT, even though it'll hurt.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think GOAT should be a mixture of Achievements + Talent + Style.

Personally I am biased towards players with attacking styles.

That's fine , well it's my personal opinion that one can be a fan of whoever they want for whatever reason. And I would certainly expect style to be a part of that.

But I think if one is being fair, greatness has to be about the results. They are playing the sport to win.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

If Djoker fans are correct, then age doesn't matter much up until age 35-40 or so. And if that's correct, then Fed's record number of weeks at #1 will be in serious jeopardy, as will his career # of slam titles. I.e,Djokovic will surpass Fed's records at #1 and his slam title count.

If Fed fans are right, then Djokodal will fall off of a cliff shortly and Fed's records will be safe.

Fed stopped being able to take down Djokovic at slams during his age-32 season. As another poster said, 2019 will tell a massive story for Djokovic. Because 2019 is Djoker's age-32 season. If Djokovic gets stonewalled at slams by younger players in 2019, then Fed's old-age excuses will be confirmed. Also, that means Djoker will likely fall way short of Fed's records. However, if Djokovic mops up in 2019, then watch out.

I really think that 2019 will tell us a ton. We shall see how much Djoker slows down. If Djoker has another epic season(3 slam titles, 70+ wins, .900 winning pct), then we'll likely see the writing on the wall that Djoker will become the king. But if Djoker gets knocked out by next-gen guys at slams, then Federer will rightfully remain the king.

Djoker's been mopping up 2018. Let's see what 2019 brings. Djokovic is looking up to the task of breaking Fed's records. And if he does it, I'll be the first to congratulate him for being the new GOAT, even though it'll hurt.

Good summation as well as fair and good post

 

[The Fedfather]

Well I do think Novak is a bigger threat on clay and RG although both only have 1 RG. I would give Djokovic a chance of beating Nadal at RG next year for example. He does seem like more of an all surface player, although Fed's obviously better on grass and fast hc by a significant margin.

A bigger threat on clay to Nadal. Overall in their primes, Federer and Djokovic showed very similar top levels and consistency.

 

[RaulRamirez]

A bigger threat on clay to Nadal. Overall in their primes, Federer and Djokovic showed very similar top levels and consistency.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I said it once and I'll say it again, Nadal was Federer's achilles heel and he struggled against him during his best years, for a couple of reasons. Djokovic is not in the same conversation. The age gap has played a significant part in how their rivalry unfolded but overall it is a very balanced one and I'd argue if Federer's and Djokovic's primes coincided, Roger would have the upper hand. However, as you rightfully said, Slams are what truly matters and Federer is second to none there as well.

Obviously time will tell. I just explained why you are wrong to claim that "no other player that can win slams on all surfaces like Novak can do" and that Federer isn't as consistent as him.

Excuses, the "prime discussion" is bias from Fed fans, That doesnt count anymore as they are still winning all of them.

If Rafa or/and Nadal gets more slams than Fed, would you say they are goat? (the one of them that gets most).

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

When you win the World Tour Finals, seasl YE#1 but suddently realise that every breath brings you closer to your death and there's nothing you can do about it

He is here to remind us we are all mortals.
in 100 years all this will be forgotten anyway.

 

[RaulRamirez]

A bigger threat on clay to Nadal. Overall in their primes, Federer and Djokovic showed very similar top levels and consistency.

It's too hard to define "primes" (it's debated here all the time, and mostly in self-serving ways), so I think one has to look at the whole record. In my opinion, but relying on results to inform it, Fed and Djokovic were both terrific on clay, and obviously both eclipsed by Rafa there. Looking at the numbers, they have performed similarly at Roland Garros, although Novak gave Rafa greater battles at RG, and also has the one win versus Rafa head-to-head. Looking closer at the clay numbers, Novak's winning percentage is better than Roger's and he also won more titles there. His head2head v. Rafa on clay is also better. So, I don't consider Roger to be quite the equal of Novak on clay.

 

[NoleFam]

I think GOAT should be a mixture of Achievements + Talent + Style.

Personally I am biased towards players with attacking styles.

Style is subjective though. You say Federer and Rafa are more art. (I don't understand this with Rafa but I will leave it for now.) Then you say Djokovic is more science but I love science. I love art a whole lot as well, but I chose science over art as far as what to do with my life. So since Djokovic is more science, maybe that's why I like his style more. It doesn't make me anymore right than you though, and has no relation to which is greater as far as effectiveness.

 

[The Fedfather]

Excuses, the "prime discussion" is bias from Fed fans, That doesnt count anymore as they are still winning all of them.

If Rafa or/and Nadal gets more slams than Fed, would you say they are goat? (the one of them that gets most).

It is not bias, not always. Federer is human, his body can't sustain similar athletic performance t both 24 and 34. Defining players' primes in tennis is more complicated because the sport is more than just physical attributes. That being said, the periods when players are at their physical best will overwhelmingly coincide with them being able to play their best, and consistently as well.

I addressed answered this before:
If it's a one Slam difference I will consider other statistics as well, it's not like Slam record is the only thing Federer has going for him. Slam titles are the most objective measurement we have, but context is important. I mean, Nadal had more USO titles than Djokovic until this Sunday but in my eyes, he wasn't the greater player there. 2 Slam difference, combined with the other achievements that Djokovic or Nadal will get along the road of getting to that record, will put them above Roger in the history books.

I'm very confident that's not going to happen though. The 3 of them were downright incredible for most of their careers, and yet Federer still stands out. The most talented player who dedicated himself fully to the sport, I don't think you can beat that.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If Djoker fans are correct, then age doesn't matter much up until age 35-40 or so. And if that's correct, then Fed's record number of weeks at #1 will be in serious jeopardy, as will his career # of slam titles. I.e,Djokovic will surpass Fed's records at #1 and his slam title count.

If Fed fans are right, then Djokodal will fall off of a cliff shortly and Fed's records will be safe.

Fed stopped being able to take down Djokovic at slams during his age-32 season. As another poster said, 2019 will tell a massive story for Djokovic. Because 2019 is Djoker's age-32 season. If Djokovic gets stonewalled at slams by younger players in 2019, then Fed's old-age excuses will be confirmed. Also, that means Djoker will likely fall way short of Fed's records. However, if Djokovic mops up in 2019, then watch out.

I really think that 2019 will tell us a ton. We shall see how much Djoker slows down. If Djoker has another epic season(3 slam titles, 70+ wins, .900 winning pct), then we'll likely see the writing on the wall that Djoker will become the king. But if Djoker gets knocked out by next-gen guys at slams, then Federer will rightfully remain the king.

Djoker's been mopping up 2018. Let's see what 2019 brings. Djokovic is looking up to the task of breaking Fed's records. And if he does it, I'll be the first to congratulate him for being the new GOAT, even though it'll hurt.

Djokovic hasn't been "mopping up" the year though, he won the last two majors with great tennis but only has one other title, which was won with great diffuculty (struggled against all of Dimitrov, Raonic and Cilic, beat Fed easily 'cause Fed was *****). Technically, a player could win all four majors aka the Grand Slam, but struggle in every tournament otherwise - not sure if that would count as "mopping up", which I'd consider to imply general dominance. I wouldn't say Nadal dominated 2010 outside of clay, even though he won Wimbledon and USO but only one other non-clay tournament (Tokyo), and that after saving MPs.